🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile contained material related to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Device Password

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly refused to provide his phone pin to police, claiming it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities used by police are designed to allow information collection. She claimed that officers had valid grounds to think Robinson still have connections to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the EDL has ceased, his views have not disappeared. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there may be data pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

Morris added, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their attention on July 28. It was his connection to others who are possibly involved in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The campaigner had turned up by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a acquaintance and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a small bag, the trial was told.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to cover costs from organizing a large demonstration that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who disputes failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on 28 July last year, could receive up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in final arguments that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing testimony from police who stated they called other organizations” after arresting him, the defense lawyer said this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to indicate his client was a terrorist.

Williamson asserted the police action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that police had used an “extraordinary power that must be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that his client journeyed to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have lessened the officers’ suspicions about him.

Expenses and Judgment Date

The activist stated that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by Elon Musk, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an supporter of the campaigner and recently addressed a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense said his client was due to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from the midweek and would not come back until October 25.

{“I wouldn’t trouble you if this was a trip to Benidorm. I would ask him to rearrange it but he is a guest of a foreign government,” said Williamson.

Goozee announced he would hand down his verdict on the start of 4 November.